The Hobbit debuted some footage in 48 fps and everyone hated it

For years, James Cameron has been telling everyone who would listen (mostly his army of high-priced whores) that a lot of the early problems people had with 3D – that it required slower cuts and camera movements because of strobing and blurring – could be solved with higher frame rates, which is relatively easy to accomplish (your TV is already capable of doing much higher than film’s 24 frames per second, for instance). Peter Jackson explained last year:

Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok–and we’ve all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years–but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or “strobe.”

Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D.

Jackson put his money where his beardy mouth is, shooting The Hobbit at 48 fps, and today Warner Bros debuted some of the footage at CinemaCon.

Peter Jackson said in a videotaped message that he hopes his movie can be played in 48fps in “as many cinemas as possible” when it opens on Dec. 14.
In his message, Jackson stated that higher frame rates could make cinema “more attractive,” especially in 3D as it is “more gentle on the eyes.” He added that 2D at 48fps also looks “fantastic.”
The clarity Jackson described was visible in the presentation, but since the clips were described as “a work in progress” Warner did not screen footage that was fully color-corrected, or featuring completed VFX work.

And if I could sum up the collective reaction, I’d say it’s something along the lines of “OH MY GOD A WITCH, BURN IT!”

Saw the 10 minutes of raw The Hobbit footage in 48FPS 3D. Intriguing, the footage looks amazing, but the 48FPS experience is an odd change. – Alex Billington, Firstshowing

Oh no. Not a fan of 48fps. Oh no no no. […] Listening to Cinemacon people – theater owners – this 48fps demo sold NOBODY. […] THE HOBBIT, frankly, did not look cinematic. -Devin Faraci, BadassDigest

Saw ten minutes of Hobbit in 48fps 3D. Very exciting, but I’m now very unsure about higher framerates #CinemaCon -Peter Sciretta, SlashFilm

Saw 10 min of THE HOBBIT in 48fps. It’s def a drastic change from 24fps and many are not going to be on board with it. #thehobbit -Steve Weintraub, Collider

I had a feeling this 48fps stuff was gonna just look like amped up 120Hz on an HDTV, which looks awful. Seems to potentially be the case. -Kris Tapley, InContention

The fact is that 48 fps 3D is the most startlingly “real” 3D I’ve ever seen in my life. The downside for older types is that it’s too real. […] In a word, 48 fps 3D looks like high-def video. It doesn’t look “cinematic”, lacking that filtered or gauzy look we’re all accustomed to. -Jeff Wells, HollywoodElsewhere

All of you clever critics there and not one person had the wherewithal to say, “Frame Rate? More like FRAME RAPE!” I mean talk about a missed opportunity.

Anyway, that seemed to be the general consensus from Twitter. Have you ever tried to watch an old movie on Blu-Ray and it looks all weird like a soap opera (yes, you can fiddle with the settings to make it better)? I get the feeling it’s like that. Something to get used to. Meanwhile, Rebecca Murray of About.com writes:

It’s literally like being on the set next to the actors as they’re performing. […] Once audiences get to see The Hobbit screened at the 48 frames per second rate when it’s released in theaters on December 14, 2012, I can guarantee moviegoers are going to demand all films be presented at 48 fps.

So there you have it, 48fps is either doomed to fail or the new standard all films must follow. Isn’t the echo chamber fun?

I don’t know anything about this science or math crap. Alls I know is my mom has a flatscreen that makes everything look flat, like it’s shot on soap opera video cams, and we have a flatscreen that shows makeup sitting on peoples faces and the pores in their skin. I like ours better.
I’ve said it before, but I’m blind in one eye and I hope this 3d crap gets flattened out for cyclops such as myself.

“Have you ever tried to watch an old movie on Blu-Ray and it looks all weird like a soap opera?”

Vince (and Scoobs), if this soap opera effect is happening to you, you should probably check the settings on the Blu-Ray player and/or television. There’s no reason an old movie should look like a soap opera unless it was recorded on video. It’s usually due to a motion blur or 120hz refresh setting enabled.

Oh boy. I had a feeling from the incredibly vague descriptions that what they were saying was that it has that “video-taped” look that Soap Operas have as compared to filmed fare, then someone actually said Soap Opera.

Yeh, I bet they release both versions and then abandon it in future filming because of the cheesiness.

“It makes my stomach churn when I walk into Best Buy or Fry’s and all of the HDTVs are playing movies at 120Hz. It turns beautiful films into butchered horrors.”

Couldn’t agree more. Movies are being butchered. Artists are being destroyed behind the scenes. Thank you for doing your best to kill cinema for the all mighty dollar James.

Vince (and Scoobs), if this soap opera effect is happening to you, you should probably check the settings on the Blu-Ray player and/or television. There’s no reason an old movie should look like a soap opera unless it was recorded on video. It’s usually due to a motion blur or 120hz refresh setting enabled.”

The reason WILL be because you’re in a theater watching it in 48fps. Wait till they want to do 60fps. I’m Sure Jimmy had to be talked down to 48.

“3D doesn’t inherently suck, but what most directors do with it sucks. It’s like saying ‘knives suck’. It’s a tool that can be used or misused.”

I agree. 3D should be used for theme park rides. Not films. Same with the higher frame rates.

I disagree with your examples though. Hugo looked like crap. Looked like everything was on shitty cards for parallax in 3d. Despicable me was a headache inducing 3d abomination. and Coraline.. well, it’s basically stop motion which is kind of already 3D so it was unnecessary there too.

Maybe my eyes are better, or maybe worse, than average so Hugo looked great to me. I saw it in one of the best theaters in the US too, though.

How about Pina? Cave of Forgotten Dreams? Despite the subject matter that was not to my taste, both of those looked great in 3D on a big screen.

In any case, good 3D is the exception, not the rule. I see a place for it after the current fad runs it’s course, but it’s not going to go away what with all the investment in theater upgrades as of late.

Hear, hear. In fact I’m seeing people starting to refer to The Hobbit as a video, not a movie. We should get a meme going on that. When I saw Avatar in 3-D I hated it. Not just the 3-D, which gave me blazing headaches and forced me to take off the glasses every few minutes (thereby destroying any immersion) but because it made me think overly critically about the story and I found myself trying to distract myself from the 3-D by identifying all the plot elements, etc that had been cribbed from sci-fi short stories and Cameron’s own work. I didn’t like Avatar until I saw a proper 2-D version on Blu-ray (on a 720 plasma, I might add). It’s a shame I’m seeing so many folks who simply don’t understand why people have an issue with this, both 3-D and 48 fps projection.

I have excellent vision. Until I see 3d movies. I saw Hugo in a massive awesome theater and it still looked like a pop up book. Scorsese should feel shame. He should pistol whip whoever convinced him to do that in 3d like Ray Liotta in Goodfellas. . which he SHOULD have one an oscar for a long time ago.

I agree. 3d has a place in the game and theme park areas, or novelty film areas, but not big cinema. It is a gimmick, a gag, and should be treated as such.. Toonman. You rule. Ps. . The Hobbit IS a video. Fact. It was shot on the RED Epic. (3D video) It won’t get my money or the 20 friends of mine that won’t see it either. I’ll gladly wait to watch that pop up book of a movie in 2d at home. I’m sure it has been butchered in many other ways too.

” “It’s literally like being on the set next to the actors as they’re performing.”
” literally like” So then it was “metaphorically” like being on set.. ”
I assume this is an exec? Good thing they are making the rules.

If you’re tv is making stuff look like video, change the settings. All that “120hz/240hz” is crap, it’s just the tv trying to make up for the fact that it’s an LCD screen and has lag. This is one of the many reasons a plasma tv is superior to LED/LCD. For movies, 48fps could be legit because it’s true 48fps. It will take some getting used to, but in a good way because what you see now (which in 99% of homes is 30fps, again due to the tv adding frames in what’s called 3:2 pulldown) is actually the inferior video scheme.

All this hand wringing is absurd. Maybe its just because I play a lot of video games, but I can’t stand motion blur in movies due to crappy frame rates. I’d love to see how many of these whiners are over 30.

“All this hand wringing is absurd. Maybe its just because I play a lot of video games, but I can’t stand motion blur in movies due to crappy frame rates. I’d love to see how many of these whiners are over 30.

“All this hand wringing is absurd. Maybe its just because I play a lot of video games, but I can’t stand motion blur in movies due to crappy frame rates. I’d love to see how many of these whiners are over 30.

But to each their own.”

Go back to your video games and Bratz dolls. More your age and speed by the sounds of it. ;)

People are actually angry about a graphical improvement. I never thought I’d see they day where people yell about having a higher frame rate, but it is apparently happening. This increased frame rate is a great idea and will make the movie look better.

If by ‘better’ you mean ‘not look like a movie any more’ then you are 100% correct. Higher frame rate does not intrinsically mean an improved picture.

Films, even some digitally shot films, have a certain aesthetic that is different than TV and adds to the experience. Did you happen to see that terrible Dillinger movie from a few years ago? It was horribly shot in digital, harshly lit, colorless and high-contrast. It looked like a bad TV show. Contrast that to Winter’s bone which was similarly colorless but had texture and depth. Jarring TV-like images take you out of the movie instantly.

Think about a painting of a murderous clown. Now think of a photograph of that same clown. They each provoke a different emotional reaction. Fantasy vs reality. Clarity vs depth. Cinema vs TV.

If 48 fps is used properly maybe it can work, but if you lose the color and depth, if things are too perfect, too shiny, it’ll suck red baboon ass.

It WILL suck red baboon ass. Thank you for educating this person a bit. Harridan, not to be rude, but you have no idea what you are talking about.
I suggest you talk to some artists who are dying trying to make this work for a maniacal unnecessary quest for money.

PS. There is a definite eye concern with 3d and 48fps too. I have seen a study first hand that illustrates the problems with vision and 3d/48fps. Watch 3D and 48/60fps for 5 yrs and get back to us.. that is if you can still see..

I’ll stick with my 60hz and my 24fps, thankyouverymuch. If that makes me a fart sniffing dinosaur than call me an Allosaurus. I don’t want to watch Iron Man and see Downey’s distracting Makeup-line make him look like a tranny. I don’t want the films I watch to look rubbery and flat. In my opinion I think film and digital are at their best when they become interpretations of light and visuals, not replications or approximations of real life, and the more they boost the frame rate and the hz the more distinct and noticeable THE UNCANNY VALLEY becomes.

The advent of 3d is exactly like the advent of personal word processing and laser printers. There is so much you can do with it that people forget the maxim of “just because you can, dont mean you should”

I remind you of all those horrible flyers/letters/memos back in the day with 22 different fonts, clip art, and every word in a different color that people made just because a word processor made it possible. Same with 3d right now. The novelty of “wow, it can do THAT?!?!” will wear off, and we can get on with making elegant, simple and enjoyable films. But we have to suffer through the “whole box of new crayons” phase.

All the above will also be true for 48fps. Dont fight it. The more its used, the more the compulsion to overdo it will wear off.

People seem to overreact. The issues Jackson describe do really strain the eyes a lot in 3D. 2D is ok and all. Not that I care much for 3D, but higher frame rates will bring less artefacts. And less artefacts means watching is easier on the eyes. Actually, here is a good neutral overview [www.shutterangle.com]

“24p is what we’re used to”. That’s what you got, 48p haters, and it’s ALL you got. 24p feels more “cinematic” simply because that’s what you’re used to seeing movies at! You’re in a worse position than those LP fanatics who used to rail against CDs, because there’s not even a qualitative (analog vs digital) difference to be had this time, just quantative (48 vs 24). You might be used to crap and expect it and by golly if crap is good enough for you, so it should be for everyone and forever! Amirite?

I am SO GLAD I’m not alone. Ever since HD and Blu-ray first came out I’ve been trying to tell people that to me the high-def makes films look like video. I finally was able to get someone to understand when we had a 1080 LCD and 720 plasma side by side playing Alice in Wonderland (the Tim Burton movie) and the 720 looks like an actual movie, while the 1080 looked like an old episode of Doctor Who where they used chroma-key for the background effects. I actually thought it looked like the early-70s BBC production of Alice in Wonderland, myself. You need to retain a cinematic look. People like Barael @ 6:47/4.26.12 simply do not understand cinema. They’re the ones who are advocating crap, not those trying to defend actual quality. Hey, guess what, ever since the 1950s most automobiles have been capable of driving 300 mph, too. But just because they can doesn’t mean they should.

I’ve hated this 48fps thing since the rumblings first started coming in about it.

We don’t just want to watch some high definition video, we want to watch a film. Peter Jackson goes on about blur and how much we don’t even know we hate it, but he fails to realize that it’s that 24 fps blur that creates a large part of the cinematic feel. For example, they put motion blur and film grain INTO video games in order to offset the increased frame rate and make them feel more like movies. They don’t do that because we hate them and they ruin our film-going experience. Something about that presentation just helps us get into a movie, some of it is “it’s what we’re used to” but it’s also just that it’s what works, it allows us to suspend our disbelief precisely because it DOESN’T feel like we’re “right there” on set with the fucking hobbits. I don’t want to be on set with the hobbits. I want to watch a movie about them; one that LOOKS like a movie and not a high definition behind-the-scenes special feature.

After all the trouble I went to explain why one feels 24p is more “cinematic”, we get guys like Dead and Toonman. They’re actually extolling the “virtues” of the blur that results from 24p! Why? Because it’s more “cinematic”! Yeah, motion blur is “cinematic” if that’s how you define “cinematic”! Quelle surprise!
This just in: movies with plot holes seem better when watched while drunk.

If you don’t understand the reasons behind this, or the properties of motion blur in life and film,you should wait until you do before you post. ( P ) refers to the way the output is done. It means there is no interlacing which doesn’t matter for this so it is irrelevant. As for 24fps it’s obvious. Real life/24fps life has motion blur. 24fps has film grain from using FILM in a camera. VIDEO ( which the hobbit was shot on ) does not have the same look and quite simply and OBJECTIVELY 48fps DOES in fact look like a daytime soap. Film for the sake of making more money at the top is being pushed into a “video looking” realm without motion blur and therefore unlike life. It will also make visual effects stand out like a guy with 3 heads because images can’t be composited into any film grain, blur, etc so everything just looks cut out on cards. Something that apparently every 3d goer and 48fps lover seem to enjoy. The OBJECTIVE view is it no longer looks like a movie. It looks like a crisp documentary. It’s also a ridiculous amount of extra work for visual effects artists making very little money in comparison to the production. So much so, that artists are quitting and quite literally dying working on these films giving way to more sweatshop type effects being produced. ( not very good looking due to being outsourced to too many places to keep it cheap and fast)
See, 48fps is also double the frames needed to render. OBJECTIVELY, you should do more research. here this may help you.[nofilmschool.com]

I don’t pretend to know too much, but the previous paragraph states that they screened footage that “wasn’t fully color corrected”. OF COURSE it didn’t look cinematic. When the film is just in the offline cut, they use what’s called “one lights” which literally means, they pass a diffuse light through the film and transfer it on to drives. This is done WAY before they ever do a final grade. By its very nature a “one light” makes everything feel washed out. Have you ever noticed that deleted scenes on a dvd often look different than the final film (flat)… it’s because doing a proper grade takes time and money.

I agree that they should have considered grading those shots properly before showing them, but looking at offline footage is going to make it all less cinematic. Don’t worry so much. There’s still a lot to be done.

Sorry for the resurrection, but I just happened upon this article and had to reply… Why are there so many whiners? If you don’t like the technology don’t buy it or support it. Stop ruining it for everyone else. I’m excited to see The Hobbit at 48fps, it’s a change. I’m driving about an hour north to watch it with a few friends. (I may have to purchase another dozen or so tickets to compensate for jeb and his friends boycotting it.) So many people are judging it (The Hobbit @48fps) based on that little preview, which is as silly as judging a video game that is still in its alpha testing stage. I’ll never claim to be a fountain of knowledge when it comes to film, but I am going view the finished product before I go praising or chastising everyone who had anything to do with The Hobbit project. Lighten up people.